Far from conclusive, but the idea of a designer-god (demiurge) was at one time a thought provoking perspective on existence.

However, your statement is best expressed as a belief made through faith; NOT a conclusive argument made through PROOF, the definition of which you're incorrectly ascribing your statement to.

Which makes it less thought provoking now that we have more advanced ways of reasoning and pondering the universe. i.e. the scientific method.

Admirable, perhaps, to still cling to said belief, but not convincing in the least, considering it is something that is neither deniable nor undeniably a possibility. Concluding science to be "proof" of God is merely a logical trap to be avoided.

EDIT:
"...therefore the inference to the best explanation is that which points to a mind, and therefore a designer."

Also, just because our theories of abiogenesis are not as sophisticated as our theories of evolution, does not suddenly mean that a designer is the final, undeniable conclusion. If that were the case with science we'd drop all of our theories in conclusion that it must be a god. We can't connect our theory of gravity to abiogenesis, therefore it is God. Laughable conclusion based in logical fallacy.

The only thing that infers such an explanation is your mind saying it is so. Similar to my inference that trees being phallic and in abundance, necessitate a giant penis god. You fail to see that science isn't merely based upon human logic and pattern recognition, it is based in mathematical observation -- which your logical leaps and bounds are not able to compete with, no matter how hard your brain tries to find a hidden pattern in anything you can grasp for, like a man drowning in an ocean of possibilities.

Anyone can infer anything from something of similar value, ergo inference without a scientific basis is silly.

I have to hear the Fox News drivel every day blaring at ultra high volumes from downstairs every day. I can't wait to get out of this house again, just to escape the maddening stuff. Depressing so many people think that it is agenda free and all the others are the one that have the agenda because Fox News and often times the pulpit says so. Don't question authority, unless said authority is a demoncrat as they tend to think of the Dems...

Of course once upon a time I did too, then I started applying actual critical thinking rather than what they said, often by going "if you really think about it..." then apply some logical fallacy that sounds true enough that you repeat it and feel embarrassed later that not only did you believe it that you actually propagated the non-sense. I used to be a hardcore Christian Republican (even had posted on the Sift under another name, but could never recover the password for, defending Fox News saying how they may be to the right but that is just to balance out how far left the mainstream media's which I was lead to believe were near Pravda). Then I had problems with legislating morality, mostly Republican drug policy and became a Christian Libertarian. Then I had an issue with American style Free Market Capitalism, and felt we had to do more to help the needy and the poor as Jesus commanded us to, and I went more or less an independent leaning to the Green/Democrat.

My faith if God started waning as I had issues with so many Christians voting Republican as the party was clearly opposed to everything I was reading in the Bible, and if Jehovah was any more real than any other supposed god, such as Odin (who at least apparently got rid of the Frost Giants as I've never seen one or evidence of one), then He'd be screaming at them that is the wrong way (now to be fair, half of the Christians in this nation also feel the Dems are more Christian oriented than Republicans, and many of the more liberal of them would point out that the election and more importantly the re-election of Obama was God's way of saying just that).

Then hundreds of Christians shouted "let them die! Let them die!" over and over again at the Republican debate and Christianity lost me forever. The Republican right wanted to see people like me and my children die because my employer doesn't offer an affordable health care plan and they don't want their taxes to help with getting health insurance either. And it wasn't just about me, because even if I got a better job, somebody has to work that job, somebody has to sacrifice health insurance so some rich guy who can more than afford to pay living wages and affordable health care for all who work for him, chooses not to in order to make himself rich, and over half the Christians in this country support the position, they vote for people who want to give that rich guy more tax cuts, and cut all aid to the people he employs. They want those people to die, as they said at the debate. Confront them and they'll say no, they don't want them to die, but the people who work there should take responsibility for their own selves, and ignore the fact somebody has to work there. They seem to think that people only work where they want to work at, and that everybody at that big box retailer is working there because its what they want rather than the fact it was who called and offered the job. They seem to think that in fact, no, nobody needs to work that spot if I didn't work it, that anybody needing affordable health insurance and a living wage simply wouldn't work the people working, or I, weren't too lazy to do so, that somehow everyone working jobs not paying living wages and not having affordable health care took those jobs out of laziness and not necessity.

@lantern53 See I'm not really an atheist, but I tend to side with them in 90% of arguments like this because of the terrible reasoning people like yourself make.

There is room to manoeuvre but it has to have rational and/or empirical rigour. Straw man arguments and black & white thinking will do little but embarrass oneself.

@Jinx nailed it with this line:
"So you're saying that, like love, God is all in your head?"

^That is about the only line of argument you could have made stick. Idea's like God's and love etc. exist in our minds and one could reasonably argue that this constitutes a kind of "existence" insofar as they affect the "reality" we experience, "reality" as we experience it is necessarily at least in part a product of the mind. (to be clear such things can ONLY be said to exist in our minds and collective imagination in lieu of material evidence)

The above at the very least moves the argument to one of materialism vs idealism. "Scientific Materialists" will still disagree as they refute the existence of mind as anything other than an illusion created by the interactions of matter and energy, but philosophically speaking that argument will at least go somewhere (hopefully phenomenology and existentialism if you think it through enough!).

If you'd gone that way I could have jumped in to try and help. But instead you used cheap shot logical fallacies even a 1st year theology student would balk at.

Sad Panda!

lantern and bob shut down...yet again. no actual arguments, just strawmen, appeals to emotion and other logical fallacies.

ahh more dodges, false equivalences and strawmen from lantern53.

do you even know what a logical fallacy is?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=logical+fallacy

Can't actually answer the challenges made to you, so change the subject am I right? standard troll tactic.

@VoodooV

what strawman?
if you are going to accuse someone of using a deceptive tactic at least understand the terminology bubba.

and you are correct.
i did just make a statement and did not clarify my reasons.
so let me clarify:

you compared the imminent threat of hostages who are in danger of physical harm or death to a possible dissident who may..or may not..be plotting harm in the future sometime as somehow being similar.

this is a logical fallacy.
your analogy is flawed.
and it does not stand.

i didnt feel i had to point this out due to the fact that @Yogi had already given you an example of executive abuse of powers.

i mean really..how do you surrender to a drone?

i apologize if i stepped over some imaginary line,or if you think i am attacking you in some fashion.

i am not....but ill refrain from engaging with you in any fashion if that is your desire.

Hi voodooV..sorry it took me so long to reply.

you're committing another logical fallacy here. Argument from ignorance. just because you can't think of any other reason for morality doesn't prove god did it.

The fallacy you mentioned doesn't apply. The argument isn't for Gods existence, the argument is that atheism is incoherent because it has no foundation for morality, among other reasons. Ravi asked the question, without God what are the Ontic referrants for reality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontic

To answer your question though. Survival...pure survival is pretty much the foundation of morality. what behavior ensures a long, prosperous and happy life? That's your morality right there. And it's all based on logic and reason, not an imaginary god.

is it better to be a dick to someone or is it better to work with other people. hrm...which ensures a higher probability of success in your endeavors.

is better in the long run to help or to hurt. Which ensures a greater likelyhood that people will be willing to help YOU out when you need it.

virtually everything that we consider moral today is the evolution (gasp) of instinctual rules we've learned over the millions (not thousands) of years that ensure a longer, happier life.

What you're talking about is pragmatism, which is to say that if it works then it is the best way to do things. Yet plenty of people have led long, prosperous and happy lives by exploiting other people for their gain. That's what works for them, so why shouldn't I emulate that standard of behavior instead of being self-sacrificing? Some of the most successful people who have ever lived got there by being terrible human beings. Basically, your standard of survival isn't about what is right, but what is right for me and that is entirely arbitrary. It also is an incoherent standard for morality.

Which is why only two of your commandments still hold up as secular laws.

I forget where I learned this but even biblical morality can be traced back to rules that made sense, at the time, that ensured survival. I think it has been shown that many of the biblical rules involving not eating certain foods can be traced back to diseases or some other logical reason, but hey, we didn't have an understanding of these pesky little things called bacteria and microorganisms back then so when you ate a certain food and died, that wasn't science, it was your imaginary sky god who was angry with you.

What's really interesting about that is that Moses was educated as an Egyptian prince, which was the most advanced country in the world at the time. He would have certainly been exposed to their medical knowledge, but you won't find a shred of that in the bible. The Egyptians were doing things like applying dung to peoples wounds, whereas the Laws of Moses detailed procedures for disease control, like hand washing and quarantine procedures, as well as public sanitation, and dietary laws which prevented the spread of parasites. They were thousands of years ahead of their time; we only started washing our hands to control disease in the past 200 years.

Even your fear and hatred of homosexuality and abortion can be easily explained by survival. When your village only numbered in the hundreds or maybe thousands and simple diseases and winters wiped out LOTS of people, discouraging homosexuality and abortion is actually a pretty good idea when the survival of your species is at stake. But when you've got advanced medicine and we've got the whole food and shelter thing dealt with and our population is now 7 billion. the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing just isn't necessary anymore. In fact, it's becoming a problem. and Once again, survival will dictate our morality. If we do nothing to combat overpopulation and resources become an issue, I guarantee you that large families will eventually have a negative stigma attached to them until the situation is resolved.

You're talking to a former agnostic who once approved of homosexuality and abortion. I am not afraid of it, and I don't hate the people doing it. This is a clash of presuppositions; if there isn't a God then I couldn't give you an absolute reason why people cannot have homosexual relationships or murder their unborn children. If we're all just glorified apes contending for limited resources, then in that paradigm it may be necessary to cull the herd. I think the appropriate response though to someone contending we should eliminate vast swaths of the human populace to save the planet is, "you first".

But God is in control and this is His planet, and since He is still creating human beings, He will provide the resources to take care of them. It's the iniquity of mankind which is limiting the resources when the truth is that we have way more than enough to take care of everyone. Take for example the fact that over 30 thousand people starve to death every day. Is that because we don't have enough food? Actually, we have more than enough food yet we waste about 1/3 of the world food supply every year. The gross world product in 2012 was over 84 trillion dollars, more than enough to feed, clothe, house and vaccinate every single person on the planet. Those people die not because there isn't enough, but because the wickedness of man.

Don't ask me though, ask an anthropologist or sociologist. They've been studying this stuff for decades. I'm sure you could even find an anthropologist/sociologist that believes in god and they'd still say the same thing. our understanding of reality changes....as does morality. no one takes seriously the old biblical rules about stoning unruly kids, working the sabbath, and wearing clothing of two types of fabric anymore. So why should we listen other outdated biblical rules that don't apply anymore. As countless others of sifters have already informed you, you have the burden of proof and you haven't met it yet.

Call me when someone discovers a disease or some other problem that arises when you mix two fabrics and we'll revisit those rules k?

God has three kinds of laws, moral civil and cermonial. The rules you're referring to were civil and ceremonial laws for Israel and not for the rest of the world. They have no application today because they were connected to the Old Covenant God had with Israel. God has a New Covenant with the whole world that doesn't include those laws. The moral laws of God do not change with time, or ever. And although we fancy ourselves as more enlightened today, the reality of the world we live in tells us that human nature hasn't changed one bit. Human nature is every bit as ugly and self serving as it always has been. If you peel back the thin veneer of civility you will find a boiling pot of iniquity.

Stop committing basic logical fallacies and you might learn this stuff for yourself You haven't ever said anything that isn't easily invalidated by a simple logical fallacy or hasn't already been debunked long ago.

It's easy to speak in generalities; if I have committed a logical fallacy, then specifically point it out. The one that you detailed earlier did not apply.

Do you watch the Atheist Experience videos Shiny? because every time I watch one of the videos and listened to the same old tired theist "arguments" over and over again. I'm always reminded of you because you just aren't saying anything new. If you're serious about understanding why your ideas just don't pan out and you're not just trolling, you should seriously watch those.

I've watched the show, and again, I was a lifelong agnostic before becoming a Christian. I was pretty far left and would have probably fit in well with the lot of you not too many years ago. So, this is all to say that I understand where you're coming from and why you think and believe the way you do, because I used to think and believe in the same ways. Your mindset isn't a mystery to me. What I've learned about it is that God has to reveal Himself to a person before they will know anything about Him. Everyone gets some revelation and it is up to them to follow it. I received the revelation that there is a God and I pursued that for many years until He revealed Himself to me through His Son Jesus Christ. He has revealed Himself to you and everyone else on this website in some form or fashion. You would be shocked to hear some of the revelation people have received and turned away from, or rationalized away later. Statistics show that 10 percent of self professing atheists pray, and that is because they are unable to within themselves completely deny the revelation that they have received. I guarantee you there are atheists on this board who wrestle with all of this but since it isn't something atheists talk about (or would admit to publicly) you would never know it, that you're all keeping a lid on the truth.

#2 They weren't dealing drugs in that video, were they? And the Oakland vice squad does conduct raids, does it not? I personally know a detective who worked there for years.

#3: "how many slaves do you own?"

Obviously slavery violates self-ownership rights. Shooting a gun on your own property violates no one's rights.

#4: "They document it in hopes the police will do something."

Don't hold your breath.

#5: "Business won't move to these places UNLESS you give them incentive (like tax huge breaks "

Sure, like in Pittsburgh or Singapore.

> "they do not just go there and fix things unless we all pay to let them."

Tax breaks is not "paying them." In fact, you have no moral right to tax. Taxation is theft.

#6: You're too vague positing little more than a bunch of opinions and declarations. Nothing here which really warrants a response.

#7: "They don't allow crime on their (ever expanding) property, period."

That's what I said. Only "public" property allows that kind of violent crime. No legitimate business would. So, while Disney can raise the standard of living on and around its grounds, it's under no pretense to maintain the civility outside of its property.

> "They show clearly that private ownership/control leads to MORE regulation, not less, it's just not government regulation."

When I say "regulation," I mean state-imposed regulation. Of course, however someone wants to regulate within their own private property is within their rights to self-ownership and private property. It's fine since it is not aggression/coercion. I'm not against private regulation. In fact, I regulate who enters into my house or uses my car. Duh. Don't you?

#8: "Oakland HAS been high crime with little money"

This is often the case. The same underlying causes for crime and poverty.

> "Much if not most of the crime happens in parking lots and buildings, on private property, not in the street."

Certainly not while the owners are using the property or while they are liable for allowing a crime to occur there. But tell me: where specifically?

I was making reference to what is happening in that video. If you want to talk about other specific instances, then tell me which ones and we can look at each one specifically.

> "Your apparent assertion that police have unfairly and wrongly stopped mob justice that would assuredly solve all the crime (by committing crimes against criminals) is laughable."

I don't know where you get this "mob justice" from. You are reading into what I said or something.

#9: "nor can you for $35 a month."

Yes I can, and better than what the police offers.

> "People will gladly take your money, but what do they do for you?"

If you are talking about the police, then nothing really.

> "Your taxes are not used only for 'security' you know."

Technically, they are used mostly to pay for war and the national debt. But police is also paid from taxes.

#10: "Most honest people in Oakland are struggling, or they wouldn't live there."

I don't know if this is true, but apparently you do. Somehow, I doubt they are struggling so much that they cannot buy a gun.

> "they can't afford rent and food"

Most "hardworking people" in Oakland cannot buy food? Really?

> "especially when you and yours stop paying taxes and all services they depend on to survive dry up."

I guess they'll still have you to pay for them and the wars and the debt. Although I'm not against charity, in fact I am actively engaged in such activities. But if you need my money, then put the guns away and ask nicely.

> "it's insanely easy to buy an illegal gun there"

But most law abiding people don't want to break the law on this or many other things.

> "Yeah yeah, I just know nothing, so ignore me."

I kind of do.

> "I don't think Oakland is a libertarian dream"

No, that was @enoch who said it was.

> "it's what you get when you de/under fund police and have terrible governing."

You always have 'terrible governing' when it comes from the state, politicians and such. It's a logical fallacy to conclude otherwise.

> "I don't think the answer is to stop governing and policing, it's to do it better (which doesn't necessarily mean more)."

Sorry, but this will NEVER happen. (But, hey, good luck with that. I'm certainly not stopping you. Go ahead. "Do better.")

> "Where is this utopian free market that has "much less poverty" you reference as evidence, I can't find it."

Then you must not be paying attention. Virtually all progress comes from the free market.

And again, if you are not interested, then it doesn't matter if you find it or not, does it? It's your life. You decide what you want and go ahead and do it and live with the consequences.

> "Ahhh, so you admit, anarchy is preferable to you over a government that's not libertarian...hmmmm."

In my opinion, a government cannot be libertarian. The logical conclusion to libertarian non-aggression is anarchy, i.e., no ruler; no state. A "libertarian" state is not really "libertarian." It's a contradiction in terms.

> "I don't think the working people of Oakland, or most anywhere else would agree."

So what? Who cares if they agree or not? They obviously don't agree and, therefore, as you say, they live in Oakland and are "struggling." If most people in Oakland agreed, they could probably turn things around. But as you say, they don't. So they, like everyone else, must live with the consequences of their decisions, their beliefs, their behaviors.

See, the good thing about being libertarian is that you don't really need to convince anyone of anything. That futile endeavor is the lot of those who hope -- against all evidence -- that they will somehow get "good government" if they can only convince others to elect the "better politicians." I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that. I'm certainly not counting on it ever happening. You have your idea of what "good government" means and how to get there, and so do many millions of other people. And they obviously don't agree.

> "And back to 'praxeology', an infant 'science' with questionable if any results."

Questionable in what way(s)? What do you know about it?

> "BTW...I was a libertarian until the Tea party came along...then I had to re-think."

The Tea Party is not libertarian. They have some libertarian preferences, but that's it. They are certainly not anarchists.

Anyway, in sum of all of this, let me say that, if you think you have the answers, then I encourage you to put them into practice. See if you can and deal with the problem!

again.

leave the country if gov't is so bad. Put your money where your mouth is.

Show us the way if it's so easy. Instead of logical fallacies, appeals to emotion and claims you're unable to back up.

Till then, you're a hypocrite. Whining about gov't like a child with a temper tantrum, but unable demonstrate a better alternative.

Show us a system w/out gov't that doesn't devolve into Lord of the Flies territory.

you're committing another logical fallacy here. Argument from ignorance. just because you can't think of any other reason for morality doesn't prove god did it.

To answer your question though. Survival...pure survival is pretty much the foundation of morality. what behavior ensures a long, prosperous and happy life? That's your morality right there. And it's all based on logic and reason, not an imaginary god.

is it better to be a dick to someone or is it better to work with other people. hrm...which ensures a higher probability of success in your endeavors.

is better in the long run to help or to hurt. Which ensures a greater likelyhood that people will be willing to help YOU out when you need it.

virtually everything that we consider moral today is the evolution (gasp) of instinctual rules we've learned over the millions (not thousands) of years that ensure a longer, happier life.

Which is why only two of your commandments still hold up as secular laws.

I forget where I learned this but even biblical morality can be traced back to rules that made sense, at the time, that ensured survival. I think it has been shown that many of the biblical rules involving not eating certain foods can be traced back to diseases or some other logical reason, but hey, we didn't have an understanding of these pesky little things called bacteria and microorganisms back then so when you ate a certain food and died, that wasn't science, it was your imaginary sky god who was angry with you.

Even your fear and hatred of homosexuality and abortion can be easily explained by survival. When your village only numbered in the hundreds or maybe thousands and simple diseases and winters wiped out LOTS of people, discouraging homosexuality and abortion is actually a pretty good idea when the survival of your species is at stake. But when you've got advanced medicine and we've got the whole food and shelter thing dealt with and our population is now 7 billion. the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing just isn't necessary anymore. In fact, it's becoming a problem. and Once again, survival will dictate our morality. If we do nothing to combat overpopulation and resources become an issue, I guarantee you that large families will eventually have a negative stigma attached to them until the situation is resolved.

Don't ask me though, ask an anthropologist or sociologist. They've been studying this stuff for decades. I'm sure you could even find an anthropologist/sociologist that believes in god and they'd still say the same thing. our understanding of reality changes....as does morality. no one takes seriously the old biblical rules about stoning unruly kids, working the sabbath, and wearing clothing of two types of fabric anymore. So why should we listen other outdated biblical rules that don't apply anymore. As countless others of sifters have already informed you, you have the burden of proof and you haven't met it yet.

Call me when someone discovers a disease or some other problem that arises when you mix two fabrics and we'll revisit those rules k?

Stop committing basic logical fallacies and you might learn this stuff for yourself You haven't ever said anything that isn't easily invalidated by a simple logical fallacy or hasn't already been debunked long ago.

Do you watch the Atheist Experience videos Shiny? because every time I watch one of the videos and listened to the same old tired theist "arguments" over and over again. I'm always reminded of you because you just aren't saying anything new. If you're serious about understanding why your ideas just don't pan out and you're not just trolling, you should seriously watch those.

it goes even further than that. Any person truly honest with themselves or has even the least bit a questioning mind at least asks themselves at one point "hey what if I'm wrong" I think pretty much every non-believer ever has asked themselves that question COUNTLESS times. And I think almost every one of them has come up with the answer that even if there is a creator, it's STILL a fucked up system and then you run into Pascal's wager where people are just believing out of fear or to cover their asses, which supposedly God can see right through that anyway so pretty much everyone ever born goes to hell.

It's virtually impossible for some people to question authority. God exists because their parents told them so and that's it. It shocks me to this day how many people don't know how to think critically or don't know what logical fallacies are.

I still remember one of the most important lessons I learned in high school from my calculus teacher. You have to learn how to learn. A teacher can teach you things and you can regurgitate them on command, but at some point you have to move past that and become your own teacher and become a problem solver.

All in all, I don't have a problem with religious people as a whole. There are plenty of religious people out there that are willing to live and let live and think god is based on love and not fear and those who think differently are not a threat. It's those...other people that try to legislate their religion that are a problem.

I suspect, bob, that you probably couldn't even convert 3/5 to decimal, so I hope you'll forgive me if I choose not take your advice on the 3/5ths compromise. I'm sure you didn't even know it was a compromise and not just some liberal hoax.

Yeah, if you're going to accuse someone of being dumb, you might want to check yourself first that you've got the whole basic spelling thing down.

"Your <sic> just pissed".... you sure you're not just projecting? We've seen before how your spelling and grammar get even worse than usual when you're upset.

Back to actual issues since you seem intent on bathing in distractions and logical fallacies. Yet again, I notice that you fail to even talk about the whole voter fraud issue. Once again, you seem to focus on the whole lazy aspect, just like your buddy in the video here. It seems a bigot's weakness is just to let them talk and they admit to their desires of disenfranchising citizens.

Keep it up with that GOP strategy of including people by accusing them of laziness. I see you're taking notes from Romney on that. Got any other comments on the 47% that he forgot about? I'm sure that strategy is working out for you so well in the elections.

Thanks for proving the Daily Show's point. Really saves time

What's hilarious is that suddenly, now that they are starting to realize that they aren't going to win, they're pretending that the shutdown had nothing to do with the ACA, They've changed their argument again and now trying to pretend it was to "curb wasteful spending"

Which again, is only a valid argument...IF YOU ARE STUPID! It's been debunked time and time again. the debt ceiling is not about new spending, it's about PAYING OUR EXISTING BILLS!!

They are completely changing their argument again and just playing up the anti-Obama rhetoric and counting on low-information voters to buy into their nonsense.

It's like they've completely given up on even trying to be truthful, every interview with a Republican on the shutdown is just them changing the subject or throwing up an ad hom attack on Obama or some other logical fallacy.

They've gone completely insane.

To me this clip just points out the absurdities of any "-ism"

The standard nonsense of "I was in X before X jumped the shark and sold out"

"Being an X means I stood for R, S, and T, thereby implying the other team doesn't stand for R, S, and T

If this doesn't demonstrate the fallacies of having a "first past the post" voting system, I don't know what does.

This demonization of "the other" has got to stop, especially when it comes to people in our own nation,

that said, not all opinions are equal, and shitty opinions do deserve, nay demand, criticism, especially when you can't back them up with any sort of basic argument without falling all over logical fallacies.

I have no interest in demonizing the other team, they're doing that all by themselves, I do however want to vote them out. I don't need to make shit up to make the argument either.

This guy is so full of logical fallacy it's barely watchable.

Edit: What TheSluiceGate said.